Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • The Notice to Hirer does not comply with the protection of Freedoms Act 2012 Schedule  4 . This is before I ask if Europarks have sent you a copy of the PCN they sent to Arval along with a copy of the hire agreement et. if they haven't done that either you are totally in the clear and have nothing to worry about and nothing to pay. The PCN they have sent you is supposed to be paid by you according to the Act within 21 days. The chucklebuts have stated 28 days which is the time that motorists have to pay. Such a basic and simple thing . The Act came out in 2012 and still they cannot get it right which is very good news for you. Sadly there is no point in telling them- they won't accept it because they lose their chance to make any money out of you. they are hoping that by writing to you demanding money plus sending in their  unregulated debt collectors and sixth rate solicitors that you might be so frightened as to pay them money so that you can sleep at night. Don't be surprised if some of their letters are done in coloured crayons-that's the sort of  level of people you will be dealing with. Makes great bedding for the rabbits though. Euro tend not to be that litigious but while you can safely ignore the debt collectors just keep an eye out for a possible Letter of Claim. They are pretty rare but musn't be ignored. Let us know so that you can send a suitably snotty letter to them showing that you are not afraid of them and are happy to go to Court as you like winning.  
    • They did reply to my defence stating it would fail and enclosed copies of NOA, DN Term letter and account statements. All copies of T&C's that could be reconstructions and the IP address on there resolves to the town where MBNA offices are, not my location
    • Here are 7 of our top tips to help you connect with young people who have left school or otherwise disengaged.View the full article
    • My defence was standard no paperwork:   1.The Defendant contends that the particulars of claim are generic in nature. The Defendant accordingly sets out its case below and relies on CPR r 16.5 (3) in relation to any particular allegation to which a specific response has not been made. 2. Paragraph 1 is noted. The Defendant has had a contractual relationship with MBNA Limited in the past. The Defendant does not recognise the reference number provided by the claimant within its particulars and has sought verification from the claimant who is yet to comply with requests for further information. 3. Paragraph 2 is denied. The Defendant maintains that a default notice was never received. The Claimant is put to strict proof to that a default notice was issued by MBNA Limited and received by the Defendant. 4. Paragraph 3 is denied. The Defendant is unaware of any legal assignment or Notice of Assignment allegedly served from either the Claimant or MBNA Limited. 5. On the 02/01/2023 the Defendant requested information pertaining to this claim by way of a CCA 1974 Section 78 request. The claimant is yet to respond to this request. On the 19/05/2023 a CPR 31.14 request was sent to Kearns who is yet to respond. To date, 02/06/2023, no documentation has been received. The claimant remains in default of my section 78 request. 6. It is therefore denied with regards to the Defendant owing any monies to the Claimant, the Claimant has failed to provide any evidence of proof of assignment being sent/ agreement/ balance/ breach or termination requested by CPR 31.14, therefore the Claimant is put to strict proof to: (a) show how the Defendant entered into an agreement; and (b) show and evidence the nature of breach and service of a default notice pursuant to Section 87(1) CCA1974 (c) show how the claimant has reached the amount claimed for; and (d) show how the Claimant has the legal right, either under statute or equity to issue a claim; 7. As per Civil Procedure Rule 16.5(4), it is expected that the Claimant prove the allegation that the money is owed. 8. On the alternative, as the Claimant is an assignee of a debt, it is denied that the Claimant has the right to lay a claim due to contraventions of Section 136 of the Law of Property Act and Section 82A of the consumer credit Act 1974. 9. By reasons of the facts and matters set out above, it is denied that the Claimant is entitled to the relief claimed or any relief.
    • Monika the first four pages of the Private parking section have at least 12 of our members who have also been caught out on this scam site. That's around one quarter of all our current complaints. Usually we might expect two current complaints for the same park within 4 pages.  So you are in good company and have done well in appealing to McDonalds in an effort to resolve the matter without having  paid such a bunch of rogues. Most people blindly pay up. Met . Starbucks and McDonalds  are well aware of the situation and seem unwilling to make it easier for motorists to avoid getting caught. For instance, instead of photographing you, if they were honest and wanted you  to continue using their services again, they would have said "Excuse me but if you are going to go to Mc donalds from here, it will cost you £100." But no they kett quiet and are now pursuing you for probably a lot more than £100 now. They also know thst  they cannot charge anything over the amount stated on the car park signs. Their claims for £160 or £170 are unlawful yet so many pay that to avoid going to Court. When the truth is that Met are unlikely to take them to Court since they know they will lose. The PCNs are issued on airport land which is covered by Byelaws so only the driver can be pursued, not the keeper. But they keep writing to you as they do not know who was driving unless you gave it away when you appealed. Even if they know you were driving they should still lose in Court for several reasons. The reason we ask you to fill out our questionnaire is to help you if MET do decide to take you to Court in the end. Each member who visited the park may well have different experiences while there which can help when filling out a Witness statement [we will help you with that if it comes to it.] if you have thrown away the original PCN  and other paperwork you obviously haven't got a jerbil or a guinea pig as their paper makes great litter boxes for them.🙂 You can send an SAR to them to get all the information Met have on you to date. Though if you have been to several sites already, you may have done that by now. In the meantime, you will be being bombarded by illiterate debt collectors and sixth rate solicitors all threatening you with ever increasing amounts as well as being hung drawn and quartered. Their letters can all be safely ignored. On the odd chance that you may get a Letter of Claim from them just come back to us and we will get you to send a snotty letter back to them so that they know you are not happy, don't care a fig for their threats and will see them off in Court if they finally have the guts to carry on. If you do have the original PCN could you please post it up, carefully removing your name. address and car registration number but including dates and times. If not just click on the SAR to take you to the form to send to Met.
  • Recommended Topics

  • Our picks

    • If you are buying a used car – you need to read this survival guide.
      • 1 reply
    • Hello,

      On 15/1/24 booked appointment with Big Motoring World (BMW) to view a mini on 17/1/24 at 8pm at their Enfield dealership.  

      Car was dirty and test drive was two circuits of roundabout on entry to the showroom.  Was p/x my car and rushed by sales exec and a manager into buying the mini and a 3yr warranty that night, sale all wrapped up by 10pm.  They strongly advised me taking warranty out on car that age (2017) and confirmed it was honoured at over 500 UK registered garages.

      The next day, 18/1/24 noticed amber engine warning light on dashboard , immediately phoned BMW aftercare team to ask for it to be investigated asap at nearest garage to me. After 15 mins on hold was told only their 5 service centres across the UK can deal with car issues with earliest date for inspection in March ! Said I’m not happy with that given what sales team advised or driving car. Told an amber warning light only advisory so to drive with caution and call back when light goes red.

      I’m not happy to do this, drive the car or with the after care experience (a sign of further stresses to come) so want a refund and to return the car asap.

      Please can you advise what I need to do today to get this done. 
       

      Many thanks 
      • 81 replies
    • Housing Association property flooding. https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/438641-housing-association-property-flooding/&do=findComment&comment=5124299
      • 161 replies
    • We have finally managed to obtain the transcript of this case.

      The judge's reasoning is very useful and will certainly be helpful in any other cases relating to third-party rights where the customer has contracted with the courier company by using a broker.
      This is generally speaking the problem with using PackLink who are domiciled in Spain and very conveniently out of reach of the British justice system.

      Frankly I don't think that is any accident.

      One of the points that the judge made was that the customers contract with the broker specifically refers to the courier – and it is clear that the courier knows that they are acting for a third party. There is no need to name the third party. They just have to be recognisably part of a class of person – such as a sender or a recipient of the parcel.

      Please note that a recent case against UPS failed on exactly the same issue with the judge held that the Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Act 1999 did not apply.

      We will be getting that transcript very soon. We will look at it and we will understand how the judge made such catastrophic mistakes. It was a very poor judgement.
      We will be recommending that people do include this adverse judgement in their bundle so that when they go to county court the judge will see both sides and see the arguments against this adverse judgement.
      Also, we will be to demonstrate to the judge that we are fair-minded and that we don't mind bringing everything to the attention of the judge even if it is against our own interests.
      This is good ethical practice.

      It would be very nice if the parcel delivery companies – including EVRi – practised this kind of thing as well.

       

      OT APPROVED, 365MC637, FAROOQ, EVRi, 12.07.23 (BRENT) - J v4.pdf
        • Like
  • Recommended Topics

CRB checks and employment


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 5528 days.

If you need to add something to this thread then

 

Please click the "Report " link

 

at the bottom of one of the posts.

 

If you want to post a new story then

Please

Start your own new thread

That way you will attract more attention to your story and get more visitors and more help 

 

Thanks

Recommended Posts

Hi guys,

 

I have applied for a job within the financial sector, and they company have said that they wish to carry out a CRB check.

 

I know that I DO have previous convictions. My question is would they bar me from employment? (The convictions are not related to theft or dishonesty, so i see no reason why they should be a problem with me being employed within finance.)

 

Can someone please give me some clarification on this ?

 

Thanks

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Martinkay,

 

To be honest it all depends on what the company policy is and what they are looking for, some places are ok as long as you own up to everything on your file (including parking fines) others are looking for certain types of offences i.e. fraud for financial, sex offences for schools etc.

 

Most of them take into account the types of offences and the length of time since they were committed. It they weren't serious and were a while ago then they should class them as spent or not relevant.

 

Hope that helps, I'm CRB and SC cleared myself so know the process a little bit.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi thanks.

 

Okay, so I shall have to own up to it then because I was convicted only 2 years ago of indecent exposure, which is classed as a sexual offence even though I was only caught peeing on the side of the road.

Link to post
Share on other sites

yeah, you will need to inform them of any convictions, both spent or unspent.

im sure if you explain to them what happenned they will understand.

 

mind you, a conviction for having a wee is a bit steep isnt it?, i thought they usually issue a fixed penalty notice for it?.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Erm yeah, but it wasnt the first time.

Lets just say that in my old job i worked outside a lot and leave it at that.

 

Its an embarrasing one though to put down but guess ill have to. no doubt they will all have a laugh and a giggle about it and i probably wont get the job :S

 

Either that or if by some miracle I DO get the job even though i have a conviction then i can see them replacing my office chair with a commode for a laugh or something.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I wouldn't worry too much about it, is there a section where you can put exactly what the offense was for rather than the offence code? (It's been a while since I filled mine in)

 

I know doormen who have been convicted of assault and violent affray yet still managed to get SIA licenses.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi thanks,

 

Okay, I shall try not to worry too much about it then. To be honest I think the law needs to be changed.

 

Instead of these companies seeing what convictions you have in all their nitty gritty detail they should instead the CRB for "advice on employment which is relevant to them" for instance if you were convicted of fraud or dishonesty then it should be the companies reponsibility to let the CRB agency know that the person is applying for a job within the financial sector. And then depending on the relevance of the conviction the CRB should only be there to dispense advice with a simple letter saying something like:

 

Cleared to work in finance: No or Yes

 

Like wise if the comapny was an educational establishment or an elderly peoples home then the CRB check should read:

 

Cleared to work with vulnerable people: No or Yes

 

That to me would be a much better system because despite my conviction it would read "Cleared to work in finance: Yes" - because my conviction bears no relevance on the job.

Link to post
Share on other sites

thing is though if they did it like that then it wouldnt show up other potentially worrying crimes.

 

for example a serial flasher might get a job working in a bank where he is in close proximty with women.

his CRB says hes ok to work in finance because he has never been convicted of theft or fraud, but whos to say he isnt going to get his john thomas out at work one day or grope someone up?.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I hear what you are saying but there are women everywhere. so does that mean he would never be allowed to work again?

 

thats really ridiculous, because then if he cant find work ever because of the studpid system that we ALREADY have then it is every tax payer in the country that has to foot the bill - through paying him unemployment benefits.

Link to post
Share on other sites

why is it a stupid system?, are you saying that a pervert has the right to molest women (or whatever their chosen fetish) at will?.

 

 

the reason that the CRB system was introduced was so that employers could assess the employees they were taking on for any crimes relating to their chosen profession, plus other crimes that were liable to cause problems, for example somebody who has never been convicted for theft may apply for a job working in a busy shop, but said person has had several convictions for anti social behavior or assault, he may not steal anything but he might end up punching someone.

 

The CRB system is fine as it is, if you have nothingto hide, then you are given plenty of opportunity to come clean and explain your actions beforehand.

 

besides, many jobs dont require a CRB check anyway.

Link to post
Share on other sites

it IS a stupid system.

 

If someone wants to molest women then they are going to do it anyway regardless of whether they are working or not. I think they are more likely to molest women down some dark alley or in the park than they are at their desk! - which to me proves that the system is stupid.

 

And a serial women molesterer for instance is going to have a hell of a lot more time on their hands to carry out their fetishes if they cannot find employment.......

 

......The old addage "The devil makes light work for idle hands" !!

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi thanks,

 

Okay, I shall try not to worry too much about it then. To be honest I think the law needs to be changed.

 

Instead of these companies seeing what convictions you have in all their nitty gritty detail they should instead the CRB for "advice on employment which is relevant to them" for instance if you were convicted of fraud or dishonesty then it should be the companies reponsibility to let the CRB agency know that the person is applying for a job within the financial sector. And then depending on the relevance of the conviction the CRB should only be there to dispense advice with a simple letter saying something like:

 

Cleared to work in finance: No or Yes

 

Like wise if the comapny was an educational establishment or an elderly peoples home then the CRB check should read:

 

Cleared to work with vulnerable people: No or Yes

 

That to me would be a much better system because despite my conviction it would read "Cleared to work in finance: Yes" - because my conviction bears no relevance on the job.

 

This is effectively what's happening from this Autumn for working with vulnerable adults/children. Google "Vetting & Barring Scheme"

Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, good! and about time !!!!

 

So maybe now when I apply for any jobs in the future my human right to confidentiality is protected whilst at the same time safeguarding our more vulnerable members of society. About time !!!

 

You may think that, but I prefer not to be permanently monitored by the state - especially so given their propensity for screw-ups with data.

 

I am a long-serving school governor in two schools. I have nothing to hide - my CRB disclosures are clear - but when ISA takes over, I am seriously thinking of quitting for good.

 

Government departments and agencies have too much personal data slopping around and they are careless with it.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Why though? Hopefully ISA will be a lot more closely monitored. I can see where you are coming from BUT..........

 

......In the past 5 years 11,500 people have been wrongly branded as criminals by the CRB, - these innocent people have had their lives and liveliehood ruined by a crappy and inefficient service. BUT..............and this is what the article i read DOESNT mention............

 

.....If 11,500 people have been wrongly branded as criminals then we would also be right to assume that means that 11,500 criminals have also got through the system and are now working with children or the elderly.

 

I have decided to turn down that job offer on the basis of what I have read about the CRB.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Why though? Hopefully ISA will be a lot more closely monitored. I can see where you are coming from BUT..........

 

......In the past 5 years 11,500 people have been wrongly branded as criminals by the CRB, - these innocent people have had their lives and liveliehood ruined by a crappy and inefficient service. BUT..............and this is what the article i read DOESNT mention............

 

.....If 11,500 people have been wrongly branded as criminals then we would also be right to assume that means that 11,500 criminals have also got through the system and are now working with children or the elderly.

 

I have decided to turn down that job offer on the basis of what I have read about the CRB.

 

But the ISA's baseline information is still from CRB..

Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree the CRB is a must, to protect vulnerable people/children. However, is it really necessary to inform a current employer that when a 44 year old man was 16 he got done for riding a moped without a tax disc? And for the employer to then call him in for an explanation with a threat hanging over him about losing his job for not telling them on his application? That is truly big brother gone mad, Unison stepped in and slapped the employer, but the grief this man went through for over a month because of this enhanced CRB and for something he could barely remember doing anyway as he was a child at the time is out of all proportion.

 

Maybe one day they will get it right!

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...